Crafted Identities - The Italian Academy · Crafted Identities: ... popularity of the Arena is linked to its modern reuse as an open-air opera theater, ... to Vicenza, Padova, Belluno,

Crafted Identities:

Renaissance Verona as a case-study December 6, 2017

Francesco Marcorin

Sydney Weinberg Fellow in Architectural History and Preservation

The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America

Columbia University in the City of New York

In 2016 the city of Verona was visited by 2 millions of tourists.

In the timeframe of an average 2-day stay, out of 100 tourists who entered a museum, 49 visited

the Arena (the Roman amphitheater), 20 Juliet’s house, 10 the Museum of Castelvecchio, 6 the

Roman theater and the archeological museum, and only 1 the Scaliger tombs1. Nevertheless, only a

few of the 329.000 people who paid a ticket to enter Juliet’s house knew that the legendary balcony

made popular by Shakespeare was fake and did not exist until 1940, when the entire museum was

created to launch a new brand in the World: Verona, the city of lovers (fig. 1). Similarly, the

popularity of the Arena is linked to its modern reuse as an open-air opera theater, whose successful

Arena Opera Festival in 2016 produced earnings summing up to over 22 millions of euros2 (fig. 2).

Although nowadays the identity of a city is mostly shaped in function of tourism – a phenomenon

whose “nobility” can be long debated, but that will not be analyzed in this paper –, the dynamics of

the definition of a local identity are exactly the same throughout the centuries, with the only difference

in the final purpose (economic, cultural or politic).

Verona, whose massive presence of Roman antiquities has always been one of the main features

of the city, tried many times to self-promote through its monuments: in the 1950s, as described before;

in the 18th century, through a revival of the local Renaissance as a response to the worldwide

spreading of neo-Palladianism in architecture3; and in the 16th century, when the city represented

itself as the Second Rome.

1 The statistical data are contained in the annual report published by the Direzione Musei d’Arte Monumenti, pp. 116-117 (http://museoarcheologico.comune.verona.it/media/_ComVR/Cdr/Cultura/Allegati/REPORT2016/DirezioneMuseiMonumenti.pdf). 2 (www.arena.it/files/arena/comunicati/2016/risultatiOperaFestival2016.docx). 3 Neo-Palladianism – or just Palladianism – can be defined as an architectural language inspired by the designs of the Renaissance architect Andrea Palladio (1508–1580). During the 17th and 18th centuries, Palladio’s Quattro Libri dell’Architettura (Four Books on Architecture, 1570) were translated into a number of languages and came to influence the new architectural tendencies in England (promoted by Lord Burlington and Inigo Jones), in Russia (by Giacomo

FRANCESCO MARCORIN | Crafted Identities: Renaissance Verona as a case-study

2

The shaping of a cultural identity in Renaissance Verona moving from the local antiquities is the

focus of my present research, and this investigation is part of a broader project on the influence of

models alternative to Vitruvius and ancient Rome on early-modern culture.

Although the reception of Antiquity is probably the most explored and obvious branch within

Renaissance studies, new contributions and interpretations are still possible, thanks to a significant

quantity of new archival findings made in the last decades and the spread of a new interdisciplinary

approach. More specifically, the intersections among art/architectural history, archaeology, identity

studies and a number of other disciplines resulted in new research topics, such as the two mentioned

before: the influence of alternative – i.e. Etruscan, Greek, Late-antique and Medieval, not only Roman

– antiquities on modern aesthetics, and the role played by local antiquities in the multifaceted

definition of the modern identity. With the term “local antiquities”, art historians refer to the ancient

monuments4 disseminated on a specific territory or city, in antithesis with the monuments in Rome,

generally considered by early-modern European culture as universal models. The reinterpretation of

local antiquities contributed to the multi-faceted shaping of the artistic language in the Renaissance

and helped defining – often with a political implication – the modern identity of a number of cities in

Italy and beyond the Alps.

The importance of Verona is connected to the exceptional quantity and quality of its ancient

monuments and the strong influence that such relics exerted on the culture of both Verona and its

neighboring cities, including Venice. Despite the centrality of the topic within the frame of the

Renaissance in Veneto and in Italy, the reception of the ancient Veronese monuments has

mysteriously received very little consideration from scholars. The 1980 exhibition Palladio e Verona

drew for the very first time the attention of international architecture and art historians, and its

catalogue can still be considered the most relevant contribution to the topic (see BURNS 1980; MARCHI

1980; MAGAGNATO 1980; SCHWEIKHART 1980; TOSI 1980). Two more books were published between

1986 and 1988 – I segni della Verona romana by Nino Cenni and Maria Marchi, and L’architettura

a Verona nell’età della Serenissima, edited by Pierpaolo Brugnoli and Arturo Sandrini –, but the

predominance of contributions from local scholars resulted in a change of perspective and in the

Quarenghi), in many other European countries and in the United States (by Thomas Jefferson). The revival of Palladian language also characterized the 18th-century architecture in Veneto; in Verona, instead of imitating a language alien to the local tradition – Palladio designed two palaces in Verona, but only a small portion of one was built –, some architects chose to rediscover and celebrate their illustrious predecessor Michele Sanmicheli (1484/88-1559). 4 Defining the concept of “monument” would probably require an entire paper, if not a book, due to its centrality within the debate on the nature of Art, the role of memory and the approach to the past with regards to preservation. Generically, every remain from the past which is given by a community a cultural meaning and the role of collecting a memory can be considered as a monument. According to such a definition, the term “monuments” include not only architectural products, but also sculptures, epigraphs and other artworks.


3

general lack of a wider contextualization, with very few exceptions (i.e. MAZZI 1988). The following

publications tended to consider Verona as an isolated case-study and to analyze the Renaissance in

architecture separately from art history and literature; even when they tried to better understand the

connections among artists, patrons and humanists, they were strongly affected by misinterpretations

and mistakes. The result was a very particular interpretation of the Veronese Renaissance – still

embraced by contemporary scholars –, in which the artistic and literary productions were explained

almost exclusively as a political tool (MARCHI 1980: 12; AURENHAMMER 1995: 170, 174-175, 178;

CONFORTI 2000: 370-371). Nonetheless, such publications had the merit of questioning aspects and

dynamics of the early-modern culture that had never been studied before and providing a wide

quantity of newly-discovered documents. In 2001, Giuseppe Conforti approached the topic from a

very innovative point of view in his article Verona veneziana nel Cinquecento. La città del principe;

such an original reading, that unfortunately did not have any impact on the following studies, will

constitute a starting point for the current research project. More recently, the archaeological interest

for the local antiquities in the 15th and 16th centuries has been explored by Margherita Bolla (2001)

and David Hemsoll (2014), while the influence of ancient monuments on modern identity in Verona

has been newly re-analyzed by Valeria Cafà (2013).

The present paper is intended as a preliminary introduction to the seminar and will provide a

general contextualization of the topic from the historical and artistic point of view, applying the

traditional research approach. The ending point will be a list of methodological and interpretative

questions rising up from the analysis, which constitute the main focus of my current research project

and will be discussed during the seminar presentation.

Verona and the past

The “golden age” of Verona can be dated to the 1st century A.D., when the city became an

important strategical base and its population grew up to 25,000 units. Despite the well-documented

history from the Roman age to the present, we know very little about its origins. Latin

historiographers variously identified its first inhabitants with the Euganei, the Raeti, the Veneti (or

Heneti), the Etruscans and the Gauls, and the debate on the first settlers is still open; nonetheless, the

archaeological evidence seems to indicate that different populations lived in the same area, probably

in different times.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Verona was elected by the Gothic King Theoderic the Great

as one of his favorite residences, and the ancient walls and most of its monuments were restored

(BOGNETTI 1959). For a short period, the city was given the title of capital of the Longobard reign,


4

but its destiny changed innumerable times in the following centuries; eventually, it became a

commune in 1136 and then a seigniory in 1262. Ruled by the Della Scala family, Verona flourished

once again between the 13th and the 14th centuries, also developing new artistic tendencies, especially

within sculpture. The city’s expansion of the political control across the mainland – to Vicenza,

Padova, Belluno, Feltre, Monselice, Bassano, Montagnana, Treviso and Lucca – worried Venice,

which set up an alliance with the neighboring seigniories (Carraresi, Visconti, Gonzaga and Estensi)

that led to the annexation of Verona to the territories of the Serenissima Republic in 1405, taking

advantage of the political instability that occurred after the Della Scalas’ defeat.

One century later, the growing influence exerted by Venice in northern Italy caused the same

reaction by the neighboring states, which organized themselves in the coalition known as the League

of Cambrai. In 1509 Verona was invaded by the imperial army and annexed to the Holy Roman

Empire. The imperial domination lasted only eight years, and from the end of 1516 to the fall of the

Serenissima Republic in 1797, Verona once again came to be part of the Venetian territories.

Nevertheless, despite its short duration, the imperial domination had such an impact on the local

politics and culture that at least for one century Venetian governors in Verona had to fight a newborn

faction made of filo-imperial exponents, who openly opposed the Venetian control (CORTE, Istorie,

3: 201-204, 281; BORELLI 1980: 3; BURNS 1995: 70-71; CONFORTI 2000: 370; DAVIES, HEMSOLL

2000a: 263; FRANK 2000: 289). Such a phenomenon somehow reflected the nostalgia for the ancient

freedom and an idealized past, identifiable with the Scaliger period, and was the violent manifestation

of a feeling that had never been able to find a tangible expression during the 15th century.

The first half of the 16th century was also characterized by the systematic exploration of the local

past through an historiographical and archaeological approach. In a city with such a huge presence of

Roman monuments, local antiquities actually never ceased to be part of the local culture. Just to give

an example, in 1368, much before the official “beginning” of the Renaissance, Cansignorio della

Scala financed the construction of the fountain still raising in the middle of the Piazza Erbe – in the

same place of the main square (the forum) of the Roman city – re-assembling an ancient marble basin

with a female statue, probably taken from the Theatre. After reworking some parts, the pagan statue

was baptized as “Madonna Verona” (Lady Verona; here the term Madonna must not be confused

with the title of the Virgin Mary); what is particularly interesting is the idea of re-using an ancient

artwork as an allegorical tool to express the greatness and the antiquity of the entire city (CAFÀ 2013:

339; see also CORNA DA SONCINO, Fioretto: 48).

As we will see in the next chapter, even though local antiquities deeply influenced the aesthetics

of early-modern painting and architecture at least from the second half of the 15th century, after 1516


5

something new happened: the approach to ancient monuments ceased to be a mere imitation and

became more “scientific”, as the antiquities started to be measured and dated.

Surveys of the ancient monuments in Verona were first published by Sebastiano Serlio in his

Terzo Libro (1540), among a collection of antiquities in Rome, Pola and other cities. In the same year

the Veronese humanist Torello Saraina published De origine et amplitudine civitatis Veronæ, as a

reply to the mistakes made by Serlio, who had probably never seen those monuments and made the

drawings after other authors (SARAINA, De origine: 1v). Nevertheless, despite the critical statement

that opens the book, Saraina is likely to have started to work on his project much earlier than 1540,

since a collection of such a wide amount of information and the collaboration with the painter

Giovanni Caroto, who made the surveys of the monuments and transferred them into woodcuts, must

have lasted more than just a few months. Just like the written memory of famous ancient monuments

had lasted longer that the monuments themselves, Caroto’s book aimed at giving local antiquities a

longer life, demonstrating a strong humanistic approach to antiquarianism (see, for a parallel: Horace,

Odes, III, 30: «Exegi monumentum aëre perennius5»). Descriptions of Verona and its antiquities

already existed in the 15th century (i.e. CORNA DA SONCINO, Fioretto, written in 1477), but their

approach was merely poetical and celebratory.

Saraina’s book explored for the first time the pre-Roman history of the city, combining

information taken from ancient historiographers with the study of toponymy and archaeological

evidence. Although the origins of Verona were obscure and often mixed with legends, it was clear

that the city was even older than Rome and its identity was a multi-layered stratification of cultures.

In 1542 Saraina published a second book, Historie e fatti de’ Veronesi nelli tempi d’il popolo e signori

scaligeri, intended as the chronological prosecution of the first, but such a topic – the history of the

Scaliger seigniory – was considered as a threat by the Serenissima Republic, and the book was

censored.

After the great success of De origine – and the illegal circulation of the Historie –, other authors

dedicated themselves to historiography, gleaning information from Saraina’s books and providing

new details from a variety of sources, in most cases apocryphal6. In 1560 Giovanni Caroto re-

published the woodcuts made for Saraina’s De origine, with some corrections; in the same years

Onofrio Panvinio wrote his Antiquitates Veronenses, that probably circulated as a manuscript for

almost a century before its posthumous publication in 16487. In the 1580s Alessandro Canobbio

5 “I have raised a monument more lasting than bronze”. 6 The most interesting one is the manuscript Collectione di una scrittura in un vaso di pietra trovata nella terra di San Martino [etc.] by Alvise Salviazio (ca. 1550), containing an apocryphal story recounting the foundation of Verona by Aeneas and the Trojans. The manuscript is collected at the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles. 7 References to Panvinio’s book can be found in Alessandro Canobbio’s Historia. An ongoing study on Canobbio’s manuscript is expected to be ready for publication in one year.


6

started to work on his Historia intorno la nobiltà e l’antichità di Verona (to remain unpublished),

while Pietro Zagata wrote his Cronica della Città di Verona, printed only in 1747. In 1586 Orlando

Pescetti translated into Italian Saraina’s De origine (Dell’origine et ampiezza della Città di Verona),

while in 1590 Giovanni Francesco Tinto published La nobiltà di Verona, followed by Delle istorie

della città di Verona by Girolamo della Corte (1592); and almost contemporarily, in 1586, the poet

Adriano Valerini published Le bellezze di Verona. Valerini’s book can be considered the most

representative expression of the Veronese culture of the time, not much for its contents – that once

again were gained by Saraina’s De origine –, but for the celebratory purpose, that became a sort of

manifesto of the local cultural identity. The constant fluctuation between two different registers – the

historiographical and the poetical – and between real data and personal interpretations was

strategically planned in order to confuse the reader and make such a biased and overstated description

of the city credible. For example, writing about the origin of the city’s name, Valerini mentioned its

provenance from Etruscan and from the name of the legendary king Vero, who first reigned in the

city; he also provided a new etymological explanation – Vere una, “really unique” in Latin – and then

suggested to interpret the name as the combination of VE (Venice), RO (Roma) and NA (Naples),

since the main features of each of the three cities were all contained in Verona (VALERINI, Bellezze:

9). Such an interpretation, that clearly has no basis, had a striking influence on the following literature,

and was still mentioned in 19th-century publications. The aim was to present Verona to the World as

something absolutely exceptional and original, with its own culture and at the same level as cities like

Rome, Athens and Thebes (VALERINI, Bellezze: 11).

The allegorical representation of Verona as a “second Rome” was a constant element in the 16th-

century historiography: the river Adige was assimilated to the Tiber, the Arena to the Colosseum and

the same legendary origin, from settlers who escaped from Troy, presented analogies with Roman

mythography. Another issue was the revendication of Latin writers, such as Catullus, Pliny, Cornelius

Nepos (SARAINA, De Origine: 38r-39r; VALERINI, Bellezze: 69-92), whose marble portraits were put

on top of the Loggia del Consiglio. An even greater importance was also given to the architect

Vitruvius, through a process of cultural appropriation, identifying the one who left his signature on

the Gavi Arch – Lucius Vitruvius Cerdo – with the celebrated architect Marcus Vitruvius Pollio,

author of one of the most influent treatises of the past, De Architectura libri decem (Ten books on

Architecture). Although the two “Vitruviuses” were likely to be two different architects, it was easier

and more convenient not to pay too much attention to such a detail and accept it as given (SARAINA,

De Origine: 38r; VALERINI, Bellezze: 79).


7

Local antiquities, modern architects

Thanks to the high-sounding name of its designer, the Gavi Arch was probably the monument

that most impressed and inspired early-modern architects (fig. 5, 6). It was first taken as a model for

two altars – Faella in Sant’Anastasia (1520-27) and Saraina in San Fermo (1523) – and was then

reproduced in several other altars: Pindemonte in Santa Anastasia (1529-42) (fig. 7), Nocchieri in

San Fermo (1535), Alighieri (or Allighieri) also in San Fermo (1547) and Fregoso in Santa Anastasia

(1565) (MARINI 1980: 165; SCHWEIKHART 1980: 86; MAZZI 1988: 151; AURENHAMMER 1995: 175-

179). It was also clearly recalled in the monuments to Averoldo in Santa Maria della Ghiara (1537)

and Nichesola (1542), and in the wooden arch erected in Padua in 1556 in honor of the passing of

Bona Sforza, designed by Michele Sanmicheli (BURNS 1980: 107; MAGAGNATO 1980: 153;

SCHWEIKHART 1980: 86; TOSI 1983: 100; AURENHAMMER 1995: 178; DAVIES, HEMSOLL 2002: 357-

358).

Sebastiano Serlio, who published a short description of the arch and some drawings in 1540

(Serlio Terzo Libro: CXXXI-CXXXIII), was skeptical about its attribution to the most famous

Vitruvius, both for the non-correspondence between the two names (Lucius Cerdo – Marcus Pollio)

and for the particular design of the cornice that was totally alien to the language of the Roman

architect8. Nevertheless, despite the non-orthodox use of the moldings and the medieval alterations

that transformed the arch into a tower, such a monument drew the attention of the most important

architects of the 16th century, like Baldassarre Peruzzi, Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and Andrea

Palladio. All of them meticulously measured and drew the parts still visible in order to ideally

reconstruct the original shape of the monument from the fragments. It must be considered that the

arch as we see it today is the result of a radical restoration made in 1932 – it was dismantled in 1805

in order to enlarge the street and then re-built in a different place, with heavy integrations –, while in

the 16th century it was in really poor condition: it was still possible to see the columns, the arch and

a fragment of the entablature, while the entire attic was missing and the pedestals were hidden under

the level of the medieval road.

After centuries of disuse and spoliations, the other monuments – the Arena (fig. 4), the Leoni

and Borsari Gates (fig. 8-11), the theater and the Arch of Jupiter Ammon – were also in the same

condition, or even worse. This is an important element to consider while analyzing Renaissance

8 In the same cornice, modillions and dentils are used together. Although it was very common in Roman architecture, Vitruvius in his De Architectura described such a solution as wrong.


8

drawings, since they represented not the actual shape of the ancient monuments, but the interpretation

provided by the early-modern architects in accordance with their ability to read the fragments and

their archaeological knowledge.

As said before, the attention to the local antiquities was not a phenomenon arisen in the 16th

century, but it was still present in the previous generations of architects, sculptors and painters. Much

before Serlio, Saraina and Palladio, such monuments had fascinated artists like Andrea Mantegna

(1431-1506) and had been taken as models by local stonecutters for the decoration of portals, altars

and cloisters. The ancient monuments were deemed interesting for their ornamentation rather than

for the architectural proportions, and in this sense the approach to antiquity before the 1520s was

more “instinctive” than philological. Even the first “modern” Veronese monument – the Faella altar,

designed by Francesco da Castello in 1520 – was still an imprecise reinterpretation of the Gavi Arch,

close to the original as for the general design, but unable to fully understand the meaning and the

function of its architectural elements.

What happened in Verona and in Veneto in the 1520s was a profound revolution in the arts that

changed completely the approach to antiquity and the shape of the cities. A brief description of such

a new phenomenon is given by the biographer Giorgio Vasari:

Giovan Maria [Falconetto] was the first who brought the true methods of building and

the good architecture to Verona, Venice, and all those parts, where before him there had not been one who knew how to make even a cornice or a capital, or understood either the measurements or the proportions of a column or of any Order of architecture, as is evident from the buildings that were erected before his day. This knowledge was afterwards much increased by Fra Giocondo, who lived about the same time, and it received its final perfection from Messer Michele San Michele, insomuch that those parts are therefore under an everlasting obligation to the people of Verona, in which city were born and lived at one and the same time these three most excellent architects. To them there then succeeded Sansovino, who, not resting content with architecture, which he found already grounded and established by the three masters mentioned above, also brought thither sculpture, to the end that by its means their buildings might have all the adornments that were proper to them. And for this a debt of gratitude – if one may use such a word – is due to the ruin of Rome, by reason of which the masters were dispersed over many places and the beauties of these arts communicated throughout all Europe (VASARI/DE VERE, 6: 47)9.

9 Fu il primo Giovanmaria [Falconetto] che portasse il vero modo di fabricare e la buona architettura in Verona, Venezia ed in tutte quelle parti, non essendo stato innanzi a lui chi sapesse pur fare una cornice o un capitello, né chi intendesse né misura, né proporzione di colonna, né di ordine alcuno, come si può vedere nelle fabbriche che furono fatte innanzi a lui; la quale cognizione, essendo poi molto stata aiutata da Fra’ Giocondo, che fu ne’ medesimi tempi, ebbe il suo compimento da Messer Michele San Michele, di maniera che quelle parti devono perciò esser perpetuamente obbligate ai Veronesi, nella quale patria nacquero ed in un medesimo tempo vissero questi tre eccellentissimi architetti, alli quali poi succedette il Sansovino che, oltre all’architettura la quale già trovò fondata e stabilita dai tre sopraddetti, vi portò anche la scultura, acciò con essa venissero ad avere le fabriche fatti quegli ornamenti che loro si convengono; di che si ha obbligo, se è così lecito dire, alla rovina di Roma. Perciò che essendosi i maestri sparsi in molti luoghi, furono le bellezze di queste arti comunicate a tutta l’Europa. (VASARI, Vite, 4: 593)


9

According to Vasari, «the true method of building and the good architecture» were first

introduced in Veneto by three Veronese architects – Fra’ Giocondo, Giovan Maria Falconetto and

Michele Sanmicheli – as an immediate consequence of the Sack of Rome in 152710. Although this is

undoubtedly an oversimplification – Fra’ Giocondo was in Venice as early as 1506, Falconetto’s first

building in Veneto dates back to 1524 and Sanmicheli had already come back from Rome and Orvieto

in 1526/27 – the passage bears consideration specifically for its desire to emphasize that «those parts

are therefore under an everlasting obligation to the people of Verona». Falconetto and Sanmicheli

came from two completely different backgrounds, yet they both left Verona around 1500 to move to

Rome. Very little is known about their activity in the capital, except that Sanmicheli came in contact

with Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and his extraordinary workshop, while Falconetto collected

an impressive quantity of drawings of monuments in Rome, Tivoli, Capua and many other sites in

central and southern Italy. Once back in Veneto, their archaeological knowledge was much more

solid and wider than any other architect, and for the first time the local antiquities were analyzed and

interpreted, and not only imitated. Despite the amount of time spent out of Verona, the languages of

both Falconetto and Sanmicheli could reveal a sort of “imprinting” exerted by the Veronese

monuments, so that it is possible to find specific references in their buildings: for example, the arch

keystones with the head of Jupiter Ammon in Falconetto’s Loggia Cornaro (1524) and Sanmicheli’s

Porta Nuova (started in 1532) were clearly inspired by the one in the homonymous arch in Verona;

Falconetto’s signatures on the piers of the gates of Padua (1528 and 1530) and the Arco del Capitanio

(1532) were made after the model of the Gavi Arch; the spiral fluted columns in Sanmicheli’s

Pellegrini chapel (ca. 1528) and in the Palazzo Bevilacqua (1556) were a homage to the ones in the

Borsari Gate. The antiquities of Verona raised the curiosity of the Renaissance architects for their

particularities in comparison with the monuments in Rome, and most of these became specific

features also of the modern Venetian architecture. Andrea Palladio, for example, was impressed by

the original way in which the plinths of the Gavi Arch were shaped, and reused them in his

buildings11; the Tuscan capitals of the theater and the Arena presented an unusual profile12, imitated

by Falconetto in the Loggia Cornaro and reproduced by Palladio in his Quattro Libri (PALLADIO,

Quattro Libri, I: 21), while the design of the pilasters of the upper level of the Arena was replicated

by Jacopo Sansovino in the façade of the Palazzo Cornaro at San Maurizio in Venice.

10 The Sack of Rome (May 6, 1527) was a military event carried out by the mutinous troops of Charles V, best known as the Landsknechts (Lanzichenecchi in Italian). Such a dramatic event forced the majority of the artists settled in Rome to leave the capital and move to other cities in Italy and beyond the Alps, with the consequent dissemination of the local artistic tendencies in Europe. 11 The plinth is the square block in the lower part of the base of the column, under the moldings; in the Gavi Arch, plinths are carved together with the underlying pedestals and shaped with a curved profile, in order to let the rain slide away. 12 They are carved with a cyma recta in the place of the ovolo.


10

The ability to interpret the ancient monuments demonstrated by the new generation of architects

had an impact not only in early-modern architecture, but also in painting – famous artists like Paolo

Veronese and Paolo Farinati were both stonecutters/architects and painters, as was Giovan Maria

Falconetto – and in literature. Torello Saraina would not have been able to write his De Origine

without the help of the painter Giovanni Caroto; and probably the same drawings by Caroto needed

to be revised by Falconetto before being published. But Saraina was also the commissioner of the

Saraina altar in San Fermo (1523), imposing himself as an active promoter of the revival of antiquity

and the spread of the new architecture. Something similar can be said for the Alighieri altar (1547),

financed by Francesco Dante Alighieri, who was the author of a translation into Italian of Vitruvius’

De Architectura; and the fact that his monument was a replica of the Gavi Arch – without the

“mistake” in the entablature criticized by Serlio – suggests that he was such a deep expert on Vitruvius

and on architecture to be able to intervene in the design process (BRUGNOLI-SANDRINI 1988, II: 160;

AURENHAMMER 1995: 178).

The interest on Vitruvius’ treatise in Verona is proved by the circulation of two different

translations in the 1530s-40s, one by Alighieri and the other by Bernardino Donato. Apparently, such

books did not have a huge impact on the local culture, yet they drew the attention of another humanist,

Daniele Barbaro, who was working on the same project; and, once again, Barbaro would not have

been able to translate Vitruvius’ De Architectura without the help of Andrea Palladio, who made the

illustrations.

For thirty years the activity of local architects like Francesco da Castello coexisted without

conflicts with the new language imported by Sanmicheli, Falconetto and Sansovino, but a general

evolution in the approach to antiquity and modern architecture was necessary to survive: not only the

new generation of artists, but also the patrons themselves were well informed about the new

tendencies.

Architecture as a political tool

Humanists, artists, patrons and collectors were part of a complex network, whose extent

overstepped the boundaries of Verona and Veneto. As many artists worked also in Venice, Vicenza,

Padua and had contacts with Rome, most of the patrons were connected with the humanistic élite in

the capital and in the other courts (Mantova, Ferrara, Florence) and were totally aware of the new

trends in art and architecture. This means that they were able to select the artists to work with in order

to introduce a specific language and obtain a specific effect, and in this sense architecture was the

most efficient tool. The façades of the palaces, as well as the private chapels and altars, were intended


11

as the mirror of the patrons’ culture, richness and power, and such a phenomenon was at the origin

of the so-called Renovatio urbis – the city renewal.

The involvement of a specific architect could depend on a multitude of factors, but a deep

analysis of the cultural network reveals a close connection between different circles of

artists/architects and circles of patrons: in other words, oral recommendations and personal contacts

were the best ways for obtaining a commission. The existing network of relations between artists,

intellectuals and patrons, and the cultural influence they exerted on one another was mistakenly

considered by historians in the last 30 years as a declaration of political support.

As said before, 16th-century authors described post-1517 politics in Verona as split in two parties,

the aristocracy and the lower classes: while the former was clearly hostile to the Venetian domination,

the latter was supportive of the Venetian rule (SANSOVINO, Origine: 239; FRIZZI, Memorie: 112;

BORELLI 1980: 3; BURNS 1995: 71; CONFORTI 2000: 371)13. Actually, the belonging to a specific

party was not automatically connected with the social classes; just like there were representatives of

the anti-Venetian faction among the common people – and Giovan Maria Falconetto was one of

them14 –, there also were aristocrats who favored the Venetian government. It was also possible that

members of the same family belonged to different parties, that makes really hard to clearly identify

the overall position of the aristocrats: examples can be found within the Nogarola and Bevilacqua

families. In any case, for at least one century, violent fights between the two parties subverted the

political stability of the city and were a source of considerable concern for Venice: this clearly

emerges in the letters sent by the podestà, which was very nervously watching the manoeuvres of

certain nobles, who were holding large secret day and night gatherings in their homes (BURNS 1995:

71)15. To give an example, Antonio Bevilacqua, according to the biographer Valerio Seta, «had so

many followers, and such a large area of the city was on his side, that his enemies were terrified»16

(SETA, Compendio: 254; CONFORTI 2000: 370). The Veronese attachment to their autonomy was also

evident in their numerous attempts to organize and finance rebel groups and by the spread of

dovecotes «with the features of fortresses», the purpose of which was to «provide hiding places for

these bandits and rogues», also documented in the area of Rovigo (FRANK 2000: 287). It is equally

undeniable that Venice was tightly controlling the situation and immediately destroying any kind of

fortification or opposing the creation of meeting places, and using strict censorship over printed

13 See Machiavelli: «E’ gentiluomini, parendo loro forse essere in colpa, non son Marcheschi; e’ populari e la infima plebe è tutta viniziana» (The nobles, possibly feeling at fault, are not supporters of St. Mark; the commoners and the poorest, however, are all Venetians) (MARCHI 1980: 9). 14 During the Hapsburg rule, Falconetto himself was the head of a faction that supported the Emperor, a role for which he was well rewarded (TEMANZA, Vite: 133-134). 15 ASVe (State Archives of Venice), Consiglio dei Dieci, Lettere dei Rettori ai Capi, b. 192, fol. 109-110, 232. 16 «[...] Di tanto seguito che tirando seco una gran parte della città si rendeva tremendo a gli nemici et emuli suoi».


12

material – in whole or in part – as in the case of the first edition of Saraina’s Historie, in 1542

(MARCHI 1980: 12 and footnote 14).

After Sanmicheli’s return to Verona around 1526/27, one of his first patrons was the bishop

Ludovico di Canossa, who had lived in Rome and had been in contact with the most influent

humanists and artists of his time, like Raphael and Giulio Romano. In Verona, Canossa’s network

included the most powerful aristocratic families – like the Bevilacquas and Della Torres –, artists like

Giovanni Caroto and Domenico Brusasorzi and humanists like the bishop Gian Matteo Giberti, the

doctor Girolamo Fracastoro, the grammarian Bernardino Donato and the geographer Giambattista

Ramusio. Sanmicheli was introduced to this circle and became close friend with Ramusio and

Fracastoro; what is more significant is that his entire activity in Verona was made possible by private

and public commissions from aristocrats belonging to the same network. Sanmicheli worked for the

Della Torre family, who distinguished themselves for the quantity of artists involved in their projects

and their ability to discover new talents, like Falconetto, Sanmicheli himself and eventually the young

Palladio; and also for the Bevilacqua, the Pellegrini and the Lavezzola families.

Since the first studies on the Veronese Renaissance, scholars have always considered all these

families as exponents of the anti-Venetian party, highlighting the close connections between political

orientation and the spread of a new architectural language in the 16th century. According to such an

interpretation, the revival of the local antiquities in modern architecture was a tool to reclaim a

cultural identity and the autonomy from Venice. It must be considered that the foundation of Venice

was relatively new – it dated to 421 A.D., according to the legend –, and for such a reason the capital

of the Serenissima Republic did not have any relevant monument from the past, if not the ones taken

from Constantinople and other Mediterranean cities during the Middle Ages. On the contrary, Verona,

Vicenza and Padua were founded much earlier than Venice, and the Roman monuments still existing

were the proof of such antiquity. In Vicenza it was still possible to see the ruins of the Berga Theater

– measured and drawn by Andrea Palladio –, while Padua could boast a theater, an amphitheater, a

bridge and a few other monuments; but in both cities such relics from the past were really poor.

Verona, on the other hand, had the most imposing monuments in Italy after Rome, and this made

possible for Renaissance architects and artists to draw inspiration from local antiquities; in other

words, the city was able to self-represent with no need to import models from outside.

According with modern scholars, the highest example of such a tendency is the façade of the

Palazzo Bevilacqua, due to its impressive quantity of references to local antiquities and monuments

in Rome and Capua, and the presence of busts of Roman emperors on the keystones (fig. 12). As a

reply to the marble lions disseminated by the Venetian governors all around the city, placing the

portraits of Roman emperors on a façade was an act of rebellion, that could be interpreted as both a


13

form of devotion to the Holy Roman Empire and an allusion to the flourishing of Verona prior the

foundation of Venice. Through the architecture of the city gates, the private and public palaces and

even the altars, and through the literary production and antiquarians, the Veronese élite openly

expressed its hostility to Venice, in a continuity with the Medieval myth of the “Madonna Verona”

and with the creation of a new identity, as “the second Rome”.

Is another perspective possible?

Despite the deep influence of such an approach on modern studies, the documentary evidence

seems to suggest that the phenomenon of the revival of the local antiquities in Renaissance Verona

cannot be interpreted as a mere political tool. As for the Bevilacqua family, for example, homonymies

and misinterpretations led to a completely wrong direction; if it is true that the family during the

Middle Ages had received titles and benefits also from the German emperors, during the 15th and the

16th centuries they loyally supported the Serenissima Republic. Scholars who have written about the

busts of emperors on the façade of their palace seem not to have noticed that the same façade contains

the biggest quantity of lion heads than any other palace in Verona, that clarifies the devotion of the

family to Venice (MARCORIN 2013; MARCORIN 2015). As for the other families, their political

orientation is not always clear, and more in general the dynamics of the relationship between the two

factions is not easily explained, without risking oversimplification or generic arguments; members of

the two factions did have contacts, were sometimes present at the same social gatherings, had equal

access to public office, and could also get married (CORTE, Istorie, 3: 201-204, 281; SANSOVINO,

Origine: 239; FRIZZI, Memorie: 182).

In 2001, Giuseppe Conforti in his Verona veneziana nel Cinquecento. La città del principe

provided an interesting collection of documents that demonstrate that the interest for the ancient

monuments in Verona was not only accepted by Venetian governors, but even encouraged and

sponsored. In the 1530s the podestà Giovanni Dolfin promoted the new paving of the main street, re-

connecting the main monuments; he also financed the construction of a new portal, designed by

Sanmicheli – who, far from being the architect of the anti-Venetian party, was indeed the main

military engineer of the Serenissima Republic – and intervened in the design of the Porta Nuova.

Analyzing the case-study of Verona in a wider context, it is also possible to find similarities with

other cities, especially in their self-identification as “second Romes”; in fact, far from being a

prerogative of Verona, self-representing through a comparison with Rome was a phenomenon quite

common, with a variety of meanings and aims, referring to both the pagan and the papal city. Trier

and Aachen in Germany (known in Italian as Treviri and Acquisgrana), Avignon and Fontainebleau


14

in France, Winchester in England and Tarnovo in Bulgaria received in different ages the appellative

of “second Rome”, as did in Italy Milan, Capua, Ravenna, Aquileia and Frascati. During the Late

Roman Empire the title of “the second Rome” was given to Constantinople, defining its role as the

new capital of the World; and Rome itself was depicted as “the second Babylon” («secunda

Babylonia»; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XVI: 17 and XVIII: 22).

That said, defining Verona as a “second Rome” was first a dialectical tool, based on the presence

of local antiquities; but, within the territories of the Serenissima Republic, Verona was not the only

city with ancient monuments, and the same phenomenon could have risen also in Pula, Split, Kérkyra

or Famagusta (Gazimağusa). On the other hand, Venice, whose identity had been influenced for

centuries by the contacts with the Byzantine empire, mysteriously never took inspiration from its

Greek colonies in order to develop an original architectural language in the Renaissance, and always

tended to be impenetrable to Roman culture. Venice considered itself “better than Rome, born free

and Christian” (FORTINI BROWN 1991: 527), counterposing its identity to the Veronese one, and

declaring its superiority.

To conclude – and to introduce my presentation – the Veronese cultural identity in the

Renaissance needs to be re-contextualized and reconsidered carefully: and, although it is possible that

in some cases art and historiography also contained political meanings, more in general the shaping

of a modern local identity was undoubtedly a more complex – and even a more spontaneous –

phenomenon within the frame of the creation of the modern European culture.


15

REFERENCES

Primary sources

CANOBBIO, Historia

Canobbio, Alessandro. (Late 16th century). Historia intorno la nobiltà e l’antichità di Verona, Biblioteca Civica di Verona, ms. 1968 (manuscript).

CAROTO, Antiquità Caroto, Giovanni. 1560. De le antiquità de Verona, con novi agionti. Verona: Paolo Ravagnan.

CAROTO, Ms 978 Caroto, Giovanni. (Before 1540). [Drawings for Saraina’s “De Origine”]. Biblioteca Civica di Verona, ms. 978 (manuscript).

CORNA DA SONCINO, Fioretto Corna da Soncino, Francesco. 1477. Fioretto de le antiche croniche de Verona e de tutti i soi confini e de le reliquie che se trovano in ditta citade. Verona. Marchi, Gian Paolo and Pierpaolo Brugnoli (eds.). 1973. Verona: Stamperia Valdonega.

CORTE, Istorie Corte, Girolamo [della]. 1592. Delle Istorie della città di Verona. Venezia: Agostino Savioli and Agostino Camporese (ed. 1744).

FRIZZI, Memorie Frizzi, Antonio. 1779. Memorie storiche della Famiglia Bevilacqua. Parma: Stamperia Reale.

PALLADIO, Quattro Libri Palladio, Andrea. 1570. I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura. Venezia: Domenico de’ Franceschi.

PANVINIO, Antiquitates Veronenses Panvinio, Onofrio. 1648 (16th century; posthumous edition). Antiquitates Veronenses (Antiquitatum Veronensium Libri VIII). Verona: Paolo Frambotti.

PANTEO, De Laudibus Panteo, Giovanni Antonio. 1483. De laudibus Veronæ opusculum. Verona.

SANSOVINO, Origine Sansovino, Francesco. 16703. Origine e fatti delle famiglie illustri d’Italia. Venezia: Combi (1582).

SARAINA, De origine Saraina, Torello. 1540. De origine et amplitudine civitatis Veronæ. Verona: Antonio Putelleti.

SARAINA, Historie Saraina, Torello. 1542. Historie e fatti de’ Veronesi [etc]. Verona: Antonio Portese.

SARAINA-PESCETTI, Dell’origine Saraina, Torello and Orlando Pescetti. 1649. Dell’origine et ampiezza della città di Verona. Verona: Francesco de’ Rossi (Verona: Girolamo Discepolo, 1586).

SERLIO, Terzo Libro Serlio, Sebastiano. 1540. Trattato di Architettura. Il Terzo Libro. Venezia: Francesco Marcolini.


16

SETA, Compendio Seta, Valerio. 1606. Compendio historico dell’origine, discendenza, attioni et accasamenti della famiglia Bevilacqua. Ferrara: Vittorio Baldini.

TEMANZA, Vite Temanza, Tommaso. 1778. Vite dei più celebri architetti, e scultori veneziani che fiorirono nel secolo decimosesto. Venezia: Carlo Palese.

TINTO, Nobiltà di Verona Tinto, Giovanni Francesco. 1590. La nobiltà di Verona. Verona: Girolamo Discepolo.

VALERINI, Bellezze di Verona Valerini, Adriano. 1586. Le bellezze di Verona. Verona: Girolamo Discepolo.

VASARI, Vite Vasari, Giorgio. 1568. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori scritte da m. Giorgio Vasari pittore et architetto aretino, di nuovo dal medesimo riviste et ampliate con i ritratti loro et con l’aggiunta delle Vite de’ vivi, & de’ morti dall’anno 1550 infino al 1567. Firenze: Giunti.

ZAGATA, Cronica Zagata, Pietro (16th century), Jacopo Rizzoni and Giambattista Biancolini. 1747. Cronica della Città di Verona. Verona: Dionigi Ramazini.

* * *

Bibliography

AURENHAMMER 1995 Aurenhammer, Hans. 1995. “Reliquiae antiquitatis urbis”: altari veronesi all’epoca di Sanmicheli e il recupero dell’architettura classica, in Michele Sanmicheli: architettura, linguaggio e cultura artistica nel Cinquecento, Howard Burns, Christoph L. Frommel, Lionello Puppi (eds.): 170-179. Milano: Electa.

BOGNETTI 1959 Bognetti, Gian Pietro. 1959. Teodorico di Verona e Verona Longobarda capitale di regno. Padova: Cedam.

BOLLA 2001 Bolla, Margherita. 2001. La rappresentazione di Verona romana e dei suoi monumenti, in Imago urbis: il vosto di Verona nell’arte, Flavia Pesci (ed.): 33-46. Verona.

BORELLI 1980 Borelli, Giorgio. 1980. La società; tra crisi e ripresa?, in Palladio e Verona, Paola Marini (ed.): 1-8. Venezia: Neri Pozza Editore.

BRUGNOLI-SANDRINI 1988 Brugnoli, Pier Paolo and Arturo Sandrini, eds. 1988. L’architettura a Verona nell’età della Serenissima (sec. XV – sec. XVIII). Vago di Lavagno: La Grafica.

BURNS 1980 Burns, Howard. 1980. Le antichità di Verona e l’architettura del Rinascimento, in Palladio e Verona, Paola Marini (ed.): 103-117. Venezia: Neri Pozza Editore.


17

BURNS 1995 Burns, Howard. 1995. «Vasti desiderij e gran pensieri»: i palazzi veronesi di Michele Sanmicheli, in Michele Sanmicheli: architettura, linguaggio e cultura artistica nel Cinquecento, Howard Burns, Christoph L. Frommel, Lionello Puppi (eds.): 54-79. Milano: Electa.

CAFÀ 2013

Cafà, Valeria. 2013. Verona, seconda Roma. Frammenti di una identità collettiva, in Architettura e identità locali, Howard Burns, Mauro Mussolin (eds.), 2: 333-343. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.

CENNI-MARCHI 1986 Cenni, Nino and Maria Marchi. 1986. I segni della Verona romana. Verona.

CONFORTI 2000 Conforti, Giuseppe. 2000. Palazzo Bevilacqua. La facciata (1547 circa?), in Edilizia privata nella Verona rinascimentale. Atti del convegno (Verona, September 24-26, 1998), Paola Lanaro, Paola Marini, Gian Maria Varanini (eds.): 369-373. Milano: Electa.

CONFORTI 2001 Conforti, Giuseppe. 2001. Verona veneziana nel Cinquecento. La città del principe, in Studi Storici Luigi Simeoni, 51 (2001): 61-83.

DAVIES-HEMSOLL 1999

Davies, Paul and David Hemsoll. 1999. Sanmicheli’s architecture and literary theory, in Architecture and Language. Constructing Identity in European Architecture, c. 1000 – c. 1650, Georgia Clarke, Paul Crossley (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DAVIES-HEMSOLL 2000a

Davies, Paul and David Hemsoll. 2000. I portali dei palazzi veronesi nel Rinascimento, in Edilizia privata nella Verona rinascimentale, Paola Lanaro, Paola Marini, Gian Maria Varanini (eds.): 252-266. Milano: Electa.

DAVIES-HEMSOLL 2000b

Davies, Paul and David Hemsoll. 2000. Sanmicheli and his patrons: planning for posterity, in Studi in onore di Renato Cevese, Guido Beltramini, Adriano Ghisetti Giavarina, Paola Marini (eds.): 161-188. Vicenza: Marsilio.

DAVIES-HEMSOLL 2002

Davies, Paul and David Hemsoll. 2002. Michele Sanmicheli a Verona e a Venezia, in Storia dell’architettura italiana: il primo Cinquecento, Arnald Bruschi (ed.): 354-371. Milano: Electa.

DAVIES-HEMSOLL 2004

Davies, Paul and David Hemsoll. 2004. Michele Sanmicheli. Milano: Electa.

FORTINI BROWN 1991

Fortini Brown, Patricia. 1991. The Self-Definition of the Venetian Republic, in City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy. Athens and Rome, Florence and Venice, Anthony Molho, Julia Emlen, Kurt Raaflaub (eds.): 511-548. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

FRANK 2000

Frank, Martina. 2000. Città, architettura, politica nel Seicento veronese: il caso di Ottaviano Spolverini, in Edilizia privata nella Verona rinascimentale, Paola Lanaro, Paola Marini, Gian Maria Varanini (eds.): 284-294. Milano: Electa.

HEMSOLL 2014 Hemsoll, David. 2014. Drawings by Palladio and others of the Porta dei Leoni in Verona, in Pegasus, 16: 263-294.


18

MAGAGNATO 1980

Magagnato, Licisco. 1980. Architettura veronese tra Falconetto e Sanmicheli, in Palladio e Verona, Paola Marini (ed.): 153-154. Verona: Neri Pozza Editore.

MARCHI 1980 Marchi, Gian Paolo. 1980. Il dottore, l’ignorante. La trasmissione della cultura nella Verona del Cinquecento, in Palladio e Verona, Paola Marini (ed.): 9-17. Verona: Neri Pozza Editore.

MARCORIN 2013 Marcorin, Francesco. 2013. Alcuni documenti inediti relativi alla facciata sanmicheliana di palazzo Bevilacqua a Verona, in Annali di Architettura, 25 (2013): 117-135.

MARCORIN 2015 Marcorin, Francesco. 2015. «Quei marmi antichi, già destinati ad un uso illustre»: le pietre per la facciata di palazzo Bevilacqua, in Verona Illustrata, 28 (2015): 71-84.

MARINI 1980 Marini, Paola, ed. 1980. Palladio e Verona. Verona: Neri Pozza Editore.

MAZZI 1988 Mazzi, Giuliana. 1988. Il Cinquecento: il nuovo lessico, in L’architettura a Verona nell’età della Serenissima (sec. XV – sec. XVIII), Pierpaolo Brugnoli, Arturo Sandrini (eds.), 1: 149-190. Verona: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore.

SCHWEIKHART 1980 Schweikhart, Gunter. 1980. La rinascita dell’antico, in Palladio e Verona, Paola Marini (ed.): 85-102. Verona: Neri Pozza Editore.

SCHWEIKHART 1995 Schweikhart, Gunter. 1995. Sanmicheli e l’antichità classica, in Michele Sanmicheli; architettura, linguaggio e cultura artistica nel Cinquecento, Howard Burns, Luitpold Christoph Frommel, Lionello Puppi (eds.): 154-159. Milano: Electa.

TOSI 1980 Tosi, Giovanna. 1980. I monumenti romani di Verona nella tradizione letteraria veronese del Cinquecento, in Palladio e Verona, Paola Marini (ed.): 33-82. Verona: Neri Pozza Editore.

VASARI/DE VERE Vasari, Giorgio. 1568. Lives of the Most Eminent Painters Sculptors and Architects. Translated by Gaston du C. De Vere (ed.). 1912-14. London: Philip Lee Warner Publishes to The Medici Society.


19

1. Verona, the city of lovers.

2. Arena Opera Festival.


20

3. Giovanni Caroto, Map of Verona, in SARAINA, De Origine (1540); CAROTO, Antiqità (1560):

1. Gavi Arch (Arco dei Gavi);

2. Arena (amphitheater);

3. Borsari Gate (Porta Borsari, or Porta dei Borsari);

4. Arch f Jupiter Ammon (Arco di Giove Ammone);

5. Piazza Erbe (forum);

6. Leoni Gate (Porta Leoni);

7. Ponte Pietra;

8. Theater.


21

4. The Arena.

5. The Gavi Arch.


22

6. Giovanni Caroto, The Gavi Arch, in SARAINA, De Origine (1540); CAROTO, Antiqità (1560).


23

7. The Pindemonte altar (1529-42, right) compared with the Gavi Arch (left).


24

8. The Borsari Gate.


25

9. Giovanni Caroto, The Borsari Gate, in SARAINA, De Origine (1540); CAROTO, Antiqità (1560).


26

10. The Leoni Gate.


27

11. Giovanni Caroto, The Leoni Gate, in SARAINA, De Origine (1540); CAROTO, Antiqità (1560)


28

12. Michele Sanmicheli, Palazzo Bevilacqua (1556-1559).

Documents

Crafted Identities - The Italian Academy · Crafted Identities: ... popularity of the Arena is linked to its modern reuse as an open-air opera theater, ... to Vicenza, Padova, Belluno,